WestEddy

I would imagine that when Josh Rojas is ready to come off the IL, they're going to have some opinions of this team to act on. That's still a way off.

Okay, perfecto over. Now blow it open.

Can't embed today. This is all I found:

I really have no idea what you're talking about. I can only assume you're sleep deprived and are hallucinating. I'm a Sox fan, and a rebuild is happening. I don't see the point of arguing nonsense to support a nonsensical narrative. Have a good day, and get some sleep if you can.

The Sox had the final call on whether Crochet started or not. Driveline or agency coaches aren't in the bullpen with him every day of the season. It's silly to try to take Crochet's success away from the Sox in order to "prove" they are horrible at developing players. Any baseball player who spent the better part of their lives in the game honing their own skills could probably slot into a scouting job. A good leader gets opinions from all his people. Who ever said Bannister is the final decision maker?

He sure could when he left the minor league system.

Outman does have a higher ceiling than what's normally available on the waiver wire. This is his last option year. If he doesn't pull it together at AAA, he's gone end of year, anyway. He's certainly not a headliner.

The guy hit the majors ready to hit, and he did. He was fully and successfully "developed". He kept getting injured, was the problem. And when people here get serious and drop the silly hyperbole, they surmise that his injury history has sapped his HR strength. Eloy was a developmental success.

Yes, when you pretend that a player seeking outside help is unique and means the organization had no hand in his development, you are wrong.

You have no point to be missed. Yeah they should. Age is the new market inefficiency. They should be filling gaps with cheap 32 year olds. They're not blocking anybody.

Three of their outfielders are injured. Go ahead and be embarrassed. I'm not embarrassed.

There's a good bunch of competitive teams that could use this version of Perez, Boston being one of them.

You keep putting Taylor in the bullpen. Why not Pallette?

For position players, there is the 10-day, and 60-day. He can stay out as long as he needs, but he can't come back sooner than 10 days. Once he starts rehab, he has a time limit before he's reinstated, or they start another 10-day, which again, is open-ended. The difference between the 10 and 60-day (besides the minimum time out) is that Slater remains on the 40-man roster.

Yeah, that's not happening. I'm carrying water for logic and reality.

And I think Meidroth was already done. They just wanted to give him a bit of a runway of success instead of dropping a slumping IF onto his first opening day roster.

There is a high level of turnover on baseball teams from year to year. Especially during a rebuild. Weird how people who agree with you complain about all the guys on this team who won't be on the next competitive team, but don't get that a good half of the next playoff team might not even be in the organization, yet. Maybe you should just stick to calling Reinsdorf cheap every 15 minutes. That seems to be the heaviest logical lifting you can do without pulling something.

14 members of the 2005 World Series team were not in the organization 2 years earlier.

You keep telling us that every GM who lost a lot of games in their first rebuild year has been fired. Can you name any? Caulfield assures us that Getz has 4-5 years.

He did. He developed a good part of the last core that went to the playoffs 2 years in a row. He also developed 3 of our rotation starters, and 2 current prospects in the lineup (Sosa, Baldwin). Too bad the previous regime had Hostetler drafting like s%*#, and punted so many of our high first rounders.

I'll bet that half of the next playoff team isn't in the organization, yet. How do they play prospects they haven't drafted or traded for, yet?

I'm not the one acting flabbergasted that a GM oversaw a losing record in the first year of a rebuild and kept his job. You're basically proving to everyone that Getz does not "deserve" to be fired after last year, and certainly not after 13 games of this season.

I'm confused. You seem to indicate that Luhnow's success came AFTER his historic run of failure with the Astros, in which case, nobody would have known at that time that Luhnow turning the Astros into a meme for failure would result in playoff success. Luhnow was hired by the Cardinals with zero baseball experience, and zero front office experience, so Chris Getz was way ahead of him there. Chris Getz won't be gifted 3 first overall draft choices like Luhnow was (and completely botched two of them - imagine if Chris Getz did that!) Luhnow also lost the Astros 2 other first rounders due to his cheating, so yeah, I agree with you, since Jeff Luhnow had so many breaks and still cheated his way out of the game, he doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Chris Getz. According to many here, by the time Luhnow was finishing off his 2nd progressively worse 100-loss season, he should have been fired.

So what? I feel bad for the dudes who take on actual embarrassment over that record. A 119-loss team isn't demonstrably "better" than a 121-loss team.

It's funny how some of you guys grasp at such BS straws to "prove" the canard that the White Sox had nothing to do with anything good that happened with their players in the organization. Most players have their own coaches, either ones they sought out at Driveline, or similar, or through their management agencies. Teams will coordinate with these outside coaches. I'm going to toss this nonsense on the growing pile of reasons to disregard your baseball acumen. This is right up there with your thought that GMs shouldn't solicit opinions from anybody in their employ who doesn't have "scout" written on their business card.